Talk:2017 Mexican Grand Prix
118.101.71.141's Results Just want to make a query as to why this user's edit was undone? Randomg (talk) 05:59, November 27, 2017 (UTC) '118' made several changes, which don't really improve the page. He (I'm assuming that 118 is a he) changed the classification of Sainz from 'DNF' to '16th', but since Sainz did not complete 90% of the race distance, it should stay as a DNF. He also changed the reason for retiring from steering to hydraulics/gearbox, but Motorsport.com lists the reason for retiring as steering. He then changed Ericsson's reason for retiring from engine to turbo, but Motorsport.com says the reason was suspension, so more research is needed to find a consensus. 118 changes Hartley's retirement from engine to power unit, and Motorsport.com agrees, but we are kind of splitting hairs on this. The current power unit consists of the ICE (Internal Combustion Engine, what used to be everything), turbocharger (using the speed of the exhaust gasses to compress incoming air), MGU-H (Motor Generator Unit-Heat, a generator/motor directly linked to the turbocharger) and MGU-K (-K for Kinetic, a generator/motor directly linked to the crankshaft) and there is a fair amount of overlap of what the terms "engine" and "power unit" can describe. The lack of complete honesty with some of the teams doesn't help. He also changes the cause of retirements for Hulkenberg and Ricciardo that Motorsport.com agrees with. So unless 118 has a really good source, I pretty much agree with Collum reversing 118's edit. HTH Will49 (talk) 07:10, November 27, 2017 (UTC) Okay thanks for responding. As you said we are'' "splitting hairs"'' on the classification for some of the retirements. This would be a good time to set a precedent for how we are properly going to use information regarding the retirement reason on race results. I have noticed that dating back to the 1950's, motorsport articles often give a more detailed / specific reason for retirement than what is often attributed to the failure officially. For example, the term engine is becoming outdated and it is now debatable whether Formula One cars really have an engine. The most official website for F1 results would be www.fia.com, however most notably they do not include retirement reasons in their race results. It only alerts the amount of time a driver participated in the race. www.formula1.com would probably be the second most reliable source, unlike the FIA it does not provide the exact time a car that dropped out of the race but instead makes a clear distinction between those drivers that were classified to have finished and having a 'DNF'. Thereafter it can become quite subjective as to what was the exact reason of retirement. In this case, Lightning McQueen reverted back to the Wikipedia statistics (I assume) which is the most reasonable and to which I think most of us use to create the race results. Although I've noticed JPDurzel often uses statsf1.com or grandprix.com. Due to the very subjective nature of retirements and as you pointed out we have to rely on the team's honesty so sourcing retirements can be difficult. Personally, I think we should rely on the official team information for retirement first. However if it appears disputable, a reason for retirement based on a reputable news source should be given. Eg. Thoughts? Randomg (talk) 07:50, November 27, 2017 (UTC)